Seems to me that is backwards. the white label one looks like what was reissued back within the past ten years (don't recall exactly) while the green label one I don't recall seeing, which would probably mean it was the original issue.

that would explain the pricing difference, as you concluded. I cannot imagine the reissue being "worth" more than the original

OK, I see...but if you go to discogs, you will see that the green label one is much cheaper than the other. You can find it for 5 pounds, being 16 pounds the most expensive copy...On th eother hand, the white label one goes for 80 pounds...Its funny, but I have more than one copy of this record and would like to sell it, so I need to know which is the OG release to put a reasonable price

I don't actually have this on 12", have the tune on a Ja DEB 7" but I have plenty of other DEB 12"s. From what I can tell the green DEB labels were used for the first few 12" releases (not the BMDEB catalogue numbered copies obviously) and the white DEB labels were progressively used for the remainder of the catalogue. I would therefore guess that the Spirit of Umoja was repressed on the white DEB label and the green label copy came first.

Werner wrote:Sorry to be a fundamentalist, but you should only correct it IF you actually have access to the record to verify that this hypothesis is correct.

Yes, of course, that is why I asked if TruthTown has a record that matches, if not then it should be left as is for the time being. If there is any doubt there could instead be a new listing created, but not if one doesn't have the record, or at least knows for sure that the information is correct. Still, it seems to be fairly uncontroversial though to assume that the labels and matrices in the existing listing don't match, no?

Maybe you are right, and i shouldn't correct it. Indeed, now I know the history of this release and its versions, and its not going to be my problem anymore, but don't you think is it possible, right and useful to correct a database if you spent enough time searching for info in the web and you got enough proofs and evidences (pics, etc...) in more than one forum/pages/databases/etc? Maybe it breaks the rules of the database...But think about it, rules were broken yet (wrong info in this release)

TruthTown wrote:Maybe you are right, and i shouldn't correct it. Indeed, now I know the history of this release and its versions, and its not going to be my problem anymore, but don't you think is it possible, right and useful to correct a database if you spent enough time searching for info in the web and you got enough proofs and evidences (pics, etc...) in more than one forum/pages/databases/etc? Maybe it breaks the rules of the database...But think about it, rules were broken yet (wrong info in this release)

Yes, I agree with you in principle. But, one of the reasons that errors do get into the database is actually that people put in information that they *assume* is correct. That is why Discogs has a very clear rule that says "only add/change information if you have the actual record". What you can do I think is vote for the current entry as being incorrect, in which case I believe the person who submitted the entry should get a message. Or add a comment to the "edit release" page.